Advocacy Strategies and approaches: Overview

Advocacy is the active support of an
idea or cause expressed through
strategies and methods that influence the opinions and decisions of
people and organisations.
In the social and economic development context the aims of advocacy are
to create or change policies, laws, regulations, distribution of
resources or other decisions that affect people’s lives and to ensure
that such decisions lead to implementation.[1]Such
advocacy is generally directed at policy makers including politicians,
government officials and public servants, but also private sector
leaders whose decisions impact upon peoples lives, as well as those
whose opinions and actions influence policy makers, such as journalists
and the media, development agencies and large NGOs.
By “pro-poor advocacy” we mean advocacy for political decisions and
actions that respond to the interests of people who directly face
poverty and disadvantage. For those pursuing the goal of equitable and
pro-poor ICT access, advocacy as a means to bring about change can be
appropriate in a range of circumstances, including:

(a) Where ICT policies could have the effect of reinforcing
poverty and discrimination. For example, “e-government” projects that
use the internet to improve access to public services may, for those
without internet access, have the reverse effect, unless they are
complemented by other measures to enable universal access to the
internet.
(b) When appropriate ICT policy change could be expected to improve
poor people’s lives and livelihoods. For example, the adoption of
broadcasting policies that enable community-based organisations to
establish their own radio or television services.
(c) As part of a wider programme of support for pro-poor ICT access.
For example, the impact and effectiveness of investment in public ICT
access centres may be improved by advocacy efforts to adopt and
mainstream good practice such as community participation in management
or use of free and open source software.

There is much that has been written on
advocacy and how to gain
influence. Some of the basic tenets of the art of persuasion, found in
political science and communication studies, appear also in early Greek
and Chinese philosophy.[2] It is widely recognised,
for example, that change comes rarely from force of logical argument
alone or from the presentation of irrefutable evidence in support of
the changes required. The latter is most starkly demonstrated by the
slow response to climate change warnings. Much depends on the
character, approach and credibility of those seeking change and the
receptiveness of those they are seeking to persuade. Advocacy is
inherently political and an understanding of political dynamics is at
the heart of effective advocacy.

Even the most clear-minded advocacy for
pro-poor ICT policies can
meet resistance for various reasons, including lack of political will,
bureaucratic inertia, and counter arguments from well-resourced
interest groups pursuing their own advocacy efforts. Effective advocacy
therefore requires research to map out the policy terrain, the
principal actors, the political relations and the interests at stake.
In the ICT policy field this terrain typically will include government
departments, communications regulators, telecommunications service
providers, media organisations, sector associations and growing numbers
of civil society interest groups. Careful planning and a strategic
approach are therefore needed if results are to be achieved.

Policy change rarely happens overnight
and is often linked to
broader change in the political environment. Effective advocacy
requires long-term as well as short-term thinking, an understanding of
the points of resistance and the means to gain traction, the readiness
to form alliances, and the flexibility to seize windows of opportunity.

This overview describes some of the more
commonly used advocacy
techniques, from critical engagement such as policy monitoring and
policy dialogue, through organised campaigns for policy change, to
pathfinder and demonstrator projects that can inform and influence
future policy making. It highlights the importance for people facing
disadvantage to be able to assert their own needs and interests. It
explains step by step how to devise an effective advocacy strategy for
ICT policy reform. It is accompanied by case examples and signposting
to further tools and resources.

2.
Techniques for effective advocacy

Policy monitoring and public
accountability
Almost all effective policy-related advocacy efforts commence with
observation and monitoring of the implementation and effectiveness of
policies already in place. These might include, for example,
commitments to ICT infrastructure roll-out, universal access policies,
support for community-based ICT access centres, public interest
broadcasting policies, or regulatory mechanisms to ensure fair pricing
of services.
High profile ICT policy monitoring by civil society advocacy groups
can, on its own, contribute to improved policy implementation and
effectiveness by highlighting public policy targets and drawing public
attention to under performance or to policy failure. Governments and
public bodies, especially in democratic societies, are sensitive to
critical reports, and more so when these are based on robust evidence
and analysis, come from a credible source, and are widely published and
disseminated.
Policy monitoring by civil society groups may be in the form of one-off
investigation into a particular area of interest; it may consist of a
baseline study, perhaps at the commencement of a new policy, and a
follow-up study later to establish what results were achieved; or it
may be a periodic monitoring report, such as an annual review.
Policy monitoring and public accountability are made easier where
government departments and other public bodies, including regulatory
organisations, maintain and publish data and reports in a timely
fashion and undertake research and consultation to facilitate decision
making in the public interest. Where this is not the case, where the
information is poor or unreliable, or where independent data is needed,
civil society organisations and coalitions may organise their own
research and data gathering, or they may rely on third party sources
such as commercial and academic research.
Right to information laws can help and, in countries where such laws
are weak or absent, their adoption or improvement has itself been a key
demand of civil society organisations, not only those working in the
communication policy field. In some cases investigative journalism may
be needed to root out and expose policy failings.
Impact may often be enhanced by involving citizens and civil society
organisations in the process of policy monitoring and review and by
gathering demand-side data using techniques such as citizen surveys,
social audits and participatory policy review. Such social
accountability mechanisms[3] have gained increasing
recognition as effective means of strengthening civic engagement in
policy making and policy monitoring.

Policy dialogue – ICT and
mainstream development policy

Policy monitoring alone may prompt
corrections to policy failure or
lead to improved policy implementation, but most civil society groups
concerned with ICT policy also carry their own ideas about what
policies are desirable. They are interested in gaining influence
earlier in the policy-making process. At its most straightforward this
involves engagement in policy dialogue with bureaucrats and politicians.
The Women of Uganda Network (WOUGNET),[4] for
example, has a core programme activity on “gender and ICT policy
advocacy” with a focus on equitable access to ICTs and engendering ICT
policy making. Their priorities include not only a focus on existing
ICT policies such as the Rural Communications Development Fund (a levy
applied to telecom providers to support areas that are underserved by
markets) but also engaging in policy development processes such as the
review of the National ICT Policy. WOUGNET participates actively in
government-organised stakeholder consultations on ICT policy, it
contributes its own studies and reports, and it responds to draft
policy proposals.
Civil society organisations like WOUGNET, whose field of interest is in
the development of the use of ICTs, tend to focus their policy dialogue
efforts on areas of policy making that are explicitly and primarily
concerned with ICT policy: universal access arrangements, national
e-strategies, etc. This may seem an obvious strategy but, on its own,
it can also have the drawback of limiting policy dialogue to a
relatively narrow range of actors – especially those who already share
a similar outlook or others perhaps more interested in ICT growth than
in pro-poor development.
Strategic engagement in policy dialogue on pro-poor ICT access can also
be gained by taking, as a primary focus, areas of mainstream
development policy – education, health, rural livelihoods, and so on –
and contributing to more strategically framed development policy making
such as the preparation of National Development Strategies.[5]
This perspective can assist in gaining traction for a pro-poor ICT
access agenda across a broader political and policy-making spectrum. It
can also assist better understanding of the real world policy choices
that politicians and their constituents face – cleaner water or faster
connectivity, more clinics or more ICT access centres – and better
articulation of the role of ICTs in poverty reduction.
For effective pro-poor ICT policy dialogue, engagement on both fronts
may be the most productive strategy: ensuring that ICT policy making is
informed by a pro-poor perspective and strengthening that position by
building support across government, especially those most engaged with
poverty reduction and pro-poor development.

Campaigns for policy change

In India, in 1996, the National Campaign
for People’s Right to
Information (NCPRI)[6] was founded by social
activists, journalists, lawyers, professionals, retired civil servants
and academics. Its goal was to campaign for a national law facilitating
the right to information. Its first step was to produce, with the Press
Council of India, a draft right to information law. After years of
public debate and the passage in several Indian states of right to
information laws, the government of India passed the Freedom of
Information Act 2002. The Act was weakly drafted, subject to widespread
criticism and never brought into force.[7] Continued
campaigning and a change of government led eventually to adoption of
the Right to Information Act 2005.
Civil society campaigns for policy change rarely achieve rapid results.
They require patience, tenacity, courage and conviction. There is no
blueprint for success, but there are some common denominators to almost
all successful advocacy campaigns.[8] It is
essential, for instance, to maintain clarity in communications: goals
should be clear and achievable; messages should be compelling for those
to whom they are intended; calls to action should be specific and
concise. Good planning and organisation must combine with the ability
to mobilise broad coalitions of public and political support towards a
common goal.
Policy campaigning is goal-oriented advocacy in which civil society
groups and coalitions aim to set the policy agenda rather than simply
to monitor or respond to government policy making. It involves taking
action and initiative. It can be exciting and empowering for those
involved, but it can also be hard work, frustrating, and ultimately
unsuccessful. Before adopting a campaigning orientation it is worth
asking whether the goals could be better achieved by dialogue or quiet
negotiation.
Campaigns for policy change draw on a wide range of tools and tactics,
including public demonstrations, protests, letter writing, lobbying,
use of media and the internet, and legal action. Campaigning is often
confrontational in nature. After all, a campaign would not be needed if
the government or private company was receptive to the policies being
advocated. Conversely, it is often the dynamic of conflict that gives a
campaign momentum, spurring media attention and recruiting public
support.
Campaigns are often built in response to particular opportunities or
threats arising in the context of the process of policy change. For
example, the transition from analogue to digital distribution systems
for television is moving ahead rapidly worldwide, with only limited
time for civil society organisations to gain guarantees of access to
the new channels. In Uruguay, a law first drafted in 2005 by a
coalition including community broadcasting activists, journalists and
labour unions was adopted in 2007, guaranteeing an equitable
distribution of frequencies between private, public and civil society
organisations. The law has ensured that civil society groups have a
legal entitlement to use part of the digital television spectrum.
In Ecuador, the process of adopting a new constitution that began in
2007 under the presidency of Rafael Correa was seen as an opportunity
by civil society groups engaged in media and ICT advocacy to challenge
the existing political economy of the communications environment and to
propose a new communication rights framework. The new constitution
adopted in 2008 included the explicit entitlement of all persons to
universal access to information and communication technologies,
together with a right to the creation of social media, including equal
access to radio frequencies.[9]
Some civil society advocacy organisations may have several campaigns
running at the same time, each with distinct goals requiring different
alliances and strategies. In other cases a single-issue organisation,
or a coalition of like minded groups, may form to campaign towards a
single policy goal, as in the example of India’s campaign for a right
to information law. International campaigning organisations, such as
Amnesty International and Greenpeace, have tested their campaigning
methods over many years. Some of the lessons learned are also relevant
to ICT policy advocacy.[10]

Building the advocacy capacity of
stakeholder groups

As noted in the introduction to this
toolkit, poor people face
systemic barriers in their access to information and in their means to
exercise their right to freedom of expression. The lack of “voice” of
disadvantaged groups is a challenge at the core of pro-poor advocacy on
ICT access.[11] It is one of the reasons why
advocacy for equitable access to ICTs is important. At the same time,
it compromises the ability of disadvantaged people themselves to
advocate for their own communication needs.
This is a critical issue that demands the attention of any organisation
engaged in pro-poor ICT advocacy. We stated earlier that “pro-poor
advocacy” means advocacy for political decisions and actions that
respond to the interests of people who directly face poverty and
disadvantage. They are the primary stakeholders. Their lack of voice
can be overcome in two distinct ways. As Drèze and Sen describe it:
“One is assertion (or, more precisely, self-assertion) of the
underprivileged through political organisation. The other is solidarity
with the underprivileged on the part of other members of the society,
whose interests and commitments are broadly linked, and who are often
better placed to advance the cause of the disadvantaged by virtue of
their own privileges (e.g., formal education, access to the media,
economic resources, political connections).”[12]
There are a great number of “pro-poor advocacy” organisations that are
not, by any means, populated by people with first-hand experience of
poverty. Rather they are run by well-educated middle-class
professionals for whom pro-poor advocacy is a vocation. This is as much
a reality in the ICT policy field as in other development sectors. That
such people have chosen to work for and in solidarity with those who
face the daily struggle of poverty and deprivation is, of course, to be
welcomed – social solidarity is very often an important component of
advocacy and political action – but, on its own, it is also “a somewhat
undependable basis of authentic representation of the interests of the
underprivileged.”[13] Solidarity has multiple
motivations, is not always accompanied by shared perspectives, and may
be more effective at attracting support when it conforms with dominant
ideologies.
Thus building the advocacy capacity of self-help groups of the
disadvantaged and of community-based and working-class organisations is
at least as important as doing advocacy for the poor. Effective
pro-poor advocacy on access to ICTs must include strategies likely to
lead to an increase in the voice and influence of the underprivileged
sections of society in ICT and other policy making. This may include,
for example, strengthening the communications capacity of disadvantaged
people’s organisations and support for development of grassroots
communication initiatives like community radio. Such strategies can be
effective in enabling people who are disadvantaged and marginalised to
speak out directly on the issues that affect their lives and
livelihoods.
The Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC),[14] for example, is a national network that combines
a programme of advocacy in ICT policy areas such as right to
information, community broadcasting and e-governance, with practical
support for rural knowledge centres and community radio stations.
Deccan Development Society (DDS)[15] is a grassroots
organisation working with women's sanghams (self-help groups) in about
75 villages in the Medak District of Andhra Pradesh, India. The 5,000
women members of the Society are mostly Dalit, the lowest group in the
Indian social hierarchy. As part of a broader strategy in pursuit of
“autonomous communities”, the women of DDS established the DDS
Community Media Trust, including a video production unit and Sangham
Radio, the first rural community radio in India and the first women’s
radio in South Asia.[16]
The right-to-information movement in India drew, among other
inspirations, on empowerment-based approaches to public accountability
pioneered by Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) in Rajasthan,
including public hearings where accounts, including public expenditure
records, were read aloud at independently organised village meetings
and local people were invited to give testimony.[17]

Pathfinder and demonstrator
projects

New ideas in policy are not always easy
to communicate to those who
influence or make decisions, particularly where they involve new or
unfamiliar uses of ICTs. It may not be until an idea has been
demonstrated in action that it is fully understood.
“Pathfinder” or “demonstrator” projects can therefore be an effective
alternative strategy for ICT policy advocacy. If success can be
demonstrated in practice, it can have the dual impact of mobilising
further demand and interest and of motivating policy makers to take
decisions that encourage replication and scaling-up. Such initiatives
can be resource intensive. They may require certain policy decisions
before they can proceed, but policy makers may also be more receptive
to allowing a limited experiment to test and demonstrate an idea than
to agreeing a major policy change.
RITS (Rede de Informacão para o Terceiro Setor)[18]
was founded in Brazil in 1997 to strengthen civil society
organisations’ communications capacity. The organisation has built an
impressive network for monitoring ICT policy and campaigning on
equitable access. A demonstrator project organised by RITS in
partnership with Sampa.org led to the establishment of 128
community-based telecentres in São Paulo, with an estimated half a
million users per month. The model offers free public access and
training support, is based on free and open source software, and
promotes community involvement in management and development of the
centres as a space for community organisation. With support from
Petrobras, it has been replicated in 50 locations across Brazil. The
Brazilian government is now considering investment in 10,000 new
telecentres drawing substantially on the experience of the RITS
demonstration.
The Nigeria Community Radio Coalition, launched in 2003, has mobilised
broad support for its campaign goal of seeing community radio services
established in Nigeria. As part of its strategy for opening the door to
community radio development, it has proposed a pilot scheme in at least
six locations to be distributed across the country’s geopolitical
zones. The proposal for a pilot scheme has been supported by the
National Broadcasting Commission and by the National Fadama Development
Programme, which has committed funding for preparation and
infrastructure.

3.
Advocacy planning and implementation

In this part we look at the practical
steps involved in ICT advocacy
planning and implementation. The stages outlined draw on principles of
strategic planning and project management combined with political
analysis and communications.[19] For each of the
stages we set out some key considerations to be addressed. At several
points we pose questions rather than solutions. There is no single
template for pro-poor ICT advocacy. The questions are intended to
assist the process of planning and design.

A. Preliminary
steps

(i)Identifying the problems and the
policy issues
What is the pro-poor ICT access issue to be addressed? Why is it
important and to whom? This may have been highlighted through research,
expressed as a demand by grassroots organisations, or it may have a
normative basis, for example, it has been identified by comparison with
good practice elsewhere. Does this problem have a policy dimension?
What current policies reinforce the problem? What changes in policies
could lead to improvement? Who is responsible for those policies?

(ii)Defining the advocacy goal
It can be helpful, at the preliminary stage, to define the goal of the
proposed advocacy initiative. What positive change can be expected to
result if the initiative is successful? Is the initiative intended to
improve access to information, to promote dialogue, or to strengthen
voice and influence? Or will it contribute to all of these things? Or
to broader development goals? Who will be the primary beneficiaries of
the initiative?

(iii)Consulting and building
relationships
Building relationships is intrinsic to any successful advocacy effort
and should also commence at an early stage. Before engaging in detailed
policy analysis and planning it can be important to consult with other
organisations, especially those which share similar goals and
interests. Has any similar initiative been tried before? If so, what
were the results? Is anything similar being considered or planned? Are
there opportunities to build a partnership-based approach from the
outset?

(iv)Establishing credibility as an
advocate
The credibility of the organisation, partnership or coalition that is
advocating change is likely to be a key factor in its success. Does it
have a mandate to speak on behalf of those who are expected to benefit?
Does it have specialist expertise? Does it have influence with decision
makers? What could be done to strengthen the credibility of the
initiative – for example, further research and consultation, better
alliances?

B. Analysing the
policy environment

(i)Identifying relevant policies,
laws and regulations
Having decided, in principle, to consider advocacy as a strategy to
achieve pro-poor ICT access and having undertaken some preliminary work
to define the advocacy goals, the next stage involves closer analysis
of the policy environment, starting with an audit of the relevant
policies and political institutions. What policies are already in place
(for example, national e-strategies, e-government, media development,
digital divide initiatives)? How are these
reflected, or not, in current laws and regulations? It is important
also to be aware of relevant international treaty obligations, laws and
standards.

(ii)Mapping relations of power and
decision making
Where are policy decisions taken and who has influence over them? For
example, is the focus on government policy and, if so, which ministries
and departments are responsible? What other ministries have an interest
in the impact of the current or proposed policies, for example, rural
development, education? Are there other public bodies with relevant
influence or responsibility, such as a communications regulator or a
national media council? What about the legislature or parliament – are
there interest groups in the policy area? Can support be usefully
mobilised across different political parties? Who else has influence
over the key political decision makers?

(iii)Considering the options for
policy change
Would a change in policy alone be sufficient to achieve the advocacy
goal? Or might the proposed policy change also require legal and/or
regulatory change? What about the economic impact – are there taxation
or public spending implications that should be taken into account? Are
there alternative approaches to be considered? Could the goals be
achieved incrementally or do they require a fundamental change in
policy? What policy options are most likely to attract support, or
generate opposition?

C. Developing
the strategy

(i)Focusing on the goal and objectives
In developing the strategy, and in the light of more systematic
analysis of the policy environment, it is advisable to return to the
advocacy goal and to set specific and realistic objectives that can be
achieved within a reasonable, defined timeframe. It should be possible
at the end of such a period to say whether or not they were achieved.
If the goal is ambitious it may be necessary to set more limited and
incremental objectives – for example, raised
awareness, commitments of support, pilot projects – that can contribute
to achieving the goal over a longer timeframe.

(ii)Identifying the target audiences
It is useful to distinguish between primary and secondary audiences.
The primary target audiences are the institutions, and the individuals
within them, who have authority to make the policy decisions that are
sought. These are generally determined by the policy goal and
objectives. The secondary audiences are those who are best placed to
influence the decision makers. These may include politicians, public
servants, the media, development agencies, influential NGOs and so on.

(iii)Identifying allies and opponents
It is important to identify both the potential allies and the likely
opponents. What other organisations share similar goals and concerns?
Would they support the initiative, be open to partnership or to joining
a broader coalition? Are there already coalitions in place? What risks
might there be in alliance or coalition building? What groups or
organisations might feel threatened by the proposals? Could this
coalesce into organised opposition? What can be done to reduce the risk
of opposition?

(iv)Selecting the advocacy approach
What advocacy strategies are most likely to influence the target
audiences? Will it be effective to work through dialogue and
negotiation with policy makers? What is the likely impact of public
pressure – can it be expected to lead to a positive response or to
resistance? What sort of treatment can be expected from the media:
supportive, hostile, or indifferent? Are there incremental strategies
that might be more likely to achieve results? Through what mechanisms
might competing interests be brokered?

(v)Identifying the key messages
In relation to the goal and objectives, what messages are likely to be
persuasive with the primary audience? What about the secondary audience
– are different messages needed for different audiences? If the
approach taken is public or based on a broad coalition, what key
messages are likely to mobilise the broadest support, gain traction in
the media, or have a viral effect, with the audience itself acting as a
multiplier?

D. Framing the
plan

(i)Preparing a plan of action
Effective advocacy requires good organisational planning. Having
defined the goal, objectives and strategic approach, it is important to
be systematic in mapping out the actions to be taken to achieve
results, including timelines and milestones. This is best brought
together in a logical framework including measurable progress
indicators.

(ii)Budgeting and identifying
resources
Cost considerations are likely to influence the approach to be taken.
Policy monitoring and dialogue, for example, may be achieved with just
limited staff or volunteer time and the means to publicise the results.
A media-oriented advocacy campaign might require substantial publicity
costs from the outset: preparing news releases and placing stories,
commissioning photographs or a video, designing posters and other
campaign materials. A capacity-building project or a demonstrator
project might require significant investment in equipment and training.
Organisations working in ICT policy advocacy will frequently have the
skills and know-how to harness new ICTs in their advocacy work – for
example, using email, text messaging and Web 2.0 technologies to assist
with data gathering, coalition building and mobilisation. Funds and
other resources will need to be sufficient to sustain the project for
its duration.

(iii)Risk assessment
What are the main risks to successful project implementation? Risk
analysis involves assessing the impact of each particular risk and the
likelihood of it happening. It is useful to rate both impact and
likelihood (e.g., low, medium, high). How can the high and medium risks
be managed to reduce their impact and/or likelihood? Particular
attention needs to be paid to any risk of harm to individuals. In many
countries, media workers, internet activists and freedom of expression
defenders have faced threats, harassment and violence in the course of
their work. Might the planned advocacy provoke state repression? Are
there non-state actors that pose physical dangers?

E. Implementation

(i)Getting the message across
Good communications is at the core of effective advocacy. This requires
attention to the message, the audience and the means of delivery. The
message needs to be clear: it should explain what is being proposed,
why it is needed, and what difference it would make. It also needs to
be compelling: it should be crafted to the interests and knowledge of
the audience. The means of delivery must ensure it is received and
heard – whether, for example, a written proposal, face-to-face
presentation or public demonstration. It is rare that a single advocacy
message will be received and acted upon. The message needs to
reinforced, by repetition and through the influence of secondary
audiences.

(ii)Using the media
The media – radio, television, press and online media – have a
particular role to play in public advocacy initiatives, especially
campaign-based approaches. Not all advocacy work uses the media, and a
media-based approach carries risks as well as opportunities. The media
can bring a mass audience, potentially increasing profile and
credibility, but they can also bring bad publicity and may contribute
to mobilising opposition as well as support. Using the media requires
planning and skills, including building contacts, knowing the media
audience, writing press releases, placing stories, being interviewed,
providing visual imagery and organising newsworthy events.

(iii)Building partnerships and
coalitions
Most advocacy initiatives involve some degree of mobilising public
support behind the proposal. What partnerships and alliances are most
likely to assist in mobilising broad-based support? What processes can
best achieve trust, collective ownership, and effective collaboration?
Should the initiative operate as an open coalition and, if so, what
mechanisms are needed to enable participation and to assure
accountability? Is support needed to build the advocacy capacity of
partner organisations? Media and the internet can also be used to
recruit and mobilise broad-based public support.

(iv)Employing tactics and negotiation
Advocacy is rarely a one-way communications process. Some advocacy work
is more reactive than proactive towards policy makers, or is explicitly
dialogical. In any case, policy and decision makers may well respond to
advocacy proposals with their own questions or alternative proposals.
Other interested parties may launch strategies to counter the proposals
being made. It may become necessary to modify the proposals to achieve
results. What alternatives might be considered? What counter proposals
can be expected? What is non-negotiable and what could be up for
discussion?

(v)Monitoring and evaluation
Throughout the implementation phase it is important to monitor the
process, the results and the policy context. Mechanisms are needed to
track activities such as meetings and communications and to monitor
results such as media coverage and expressions of public support. Data
needs to be maintained on the target audiences: contact details,
positions they have taken, offers of assistance and so on. The process
and results should be evaluated not only at the end of the planned
timeframe but on a regular basis so that adjustments, if needed, can be
made to the strategy and plan of action. Advocacy invariably takes
place in a dynamic environment, especially when the focus is on ICTs.
The policy terrain can change for social, political or economic reasons
that are independent of the advocacy initiative underway. The ability
to react quickly and flexibly, to spot windows of opportunity, and to
anticipate new challenges requires close monitoring of the policy
context and of broader trends.

4. Case studies

Three case studies have been provided
for this module as well as a
list of additional resource material. The advocacy case studies are
outlined below:

Project

Project Description

Highlights

São Paulo Telecentres Project

A successful example of how practical ICT demonstration at a
local level can support national advocacy for policy change

This partnership-based project mobilised policy, investment
and technical support leading to the establishment of 128
community-based telecentres. It eventually influenced national-level
digital-inclusion policies.

Advocacy for community radio in Nigeria

A five-year advocacy project seeking policy change to enable
the establishment of community radio services

This case study illustrates their approach and the challenges
when campaigning for ICT policy change. It also highlights the lessons
learned: for instance, how commitments to change policy mean little
without political will.

Rural Knowledge Centre Movement

The story behind the “Mission 2007: Every Village a Knowledge
Centre” vision that has the goal of extending the benefits of rural ICT
access to 600,000 villages in India

This case study documents how a project has evolved into a
mass movement in India and influenced similar initiatives in Asia and
Africa, and has mobilised high-level support from public, private and
civil society organisations.

There are also case studies in other
modules of this toolkit which are
particularly relevant to advocacy:

Project

Project Description

Highlights

The Huaral Valley Agrarian Information System, Peru

This project is providing phone and internet access for poor
farming communities and access to an agrarian information system

This case study illustrates the importance of leadership and
vision to ensure that lobbying and advocacy are undertaken both within
communities but also with the government. The community, through its
irrigation board, was able to lobby for changes in the existing
restrictive ICT policy and regulatory frameworks.

Nepal Wireless Networking Project

Low-cost and easy-to-maintain wireless networks used in harsh
and remote locations in Nepal to provide phone and internet access to
dispersed and marginalised communities

The advocacy efforts of the local champion, Mahabir Pun,
resulted in the government changing its restrictive telecoms policies
that previously prohibited the use of wireless networks, while also
dropping the costs of licences to under USD 2.

Case Study: Community Radio Development in Nigeria

This case study reports on five years of advocacy for policy change in Nigeria to enable the establishment of community radio services. It has been included in the toolkit as an illustration of the challenges of campaigning for ICT policy change. At the time of writing there is still no community radio in Nigeria. A well-organised campaign, launched in 2003, has built a substantial civil society coalition and gained commitments of support from government, politicians, the broadcast regulator, civil society organisations and international development agencies. Yet the goal of the campaign remains elusive and the advocacy effort has required continuing renewal.

The case study highlights some lessons learned: the pace of change can be uneven and unpredictable; key decision makers in government may be replaced, requiring new relations to be established; commitments to change may not translate into action, particularly when they are not backed by political will; advocacy campaigns require sustained access to resources if they are to maintain consistent and effective pressure.

Case Study: Grameen Gyan Abhiyan Rural Knowledge Centre Movement

Grameen Gyan Abhiyan (Rural Knowledge Network) is a multi-stakeholder alliance advocating the use of ICTs to empower rural communities through the establishment of rural knowledge centres. This case study illustrates planning, implementation and development of a mass movement-oriented advocacy campaign to bring ICT access to rural India. Building on an initiative of the M S Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF) in South India in 1998 that tested the concept of Village Knowledge Centres, the project evolved into the campaign “Mission 2007: Every Village a Knowledge Centre” with the goal of extending the benefits of ICT access to 600,000 villages in India. The case study describes the evolution of the campaign from small beginnings into a mass movement that has influenced similar initiatives in Asia and Africa and has mobilised high-level support from public, private and civil society organisations.

Case Study: São Paulo Telecentres Project

casestudy_GCAThis case study is about the
involvement of RITS (Rede
de Informacão para o Terceiro Setor) – a Brazilian civil society
organisation involved in ICT policy monitoring and advocacy – in
setting up community access centres (telecentres) in São Paulo which
inspired various policies to roll out telecentres in Brazil.
The São Paulo Telecentres Project was selected for inclusion in this
toolkit as a successful example of how practical ICT demonstration at a
local level can support national advocacy for policy change. This
partnership-based project mobilised policy, investment and technical
support leading to the establishment of 128 community-based
telecentres. The São Paulo model was based on free public access to
facilities and training, community participation in management, free
and open source software, and development of the community telecentre
as a venue for social organisation.
RITS provided support for the São Paulo telecentres right from the
conceptual stage. RITS was instrumental in pioneering new and
innovative approaches and ensuring results were widely disseminated.
The project has influenced national policies on digital inclusion and
free and open source software and has inspired proposals to roll out
community telecentres across Brazil.

Resources

Advocacy
Strategies and Aproaches
Module

New
Tactics in Human Rights: A Resource for Practitioners
Written and edited by Tricia Cornell, Kate Kelsch and Nicole Palasz and
published in 2004 by the New Tactics in Human Rights Project, this
workbook promotes tactical innovation and strategic thinking within the
international human rights community, including new and innovative
approaches to advocacy in challenging environments. The project is
coordinated by the Center for Victims of Torture.

Amnesty
International Campaigning Manual
Published by Amnesty International in 1997, this manual remains a
classic reference book aiming to pass on the experience of 35 years of
Amnesty International campaigning for the protection and promotion of
human rights. Although the manual is primarily written for Amnesty
International campaigners, it is useful for all involved in human
rights advocacy and for people in other campaigning organizations.

Now Hear This: The Nine Laws of Successful Advocacy
Communications
Written by Kristen Wolf and published by Fenton Communications (2001),
this pamphlet provides "a strategic marketing and communications
perspective " on advocacy with mainly US-based campaign examples.

Global Information
Society Watch
The Global Information Society Watch monitors the implementation and
follow-up of key international agreements about ICT policies and their
relationship to development, including WSIS and other information and
communication policy processes at international, regional and national
level.

Women of Uganda
Network SAVE: Gender and ICT Policy Advocacy Campaigning for Free
Expression: A Handbook for Advocates SAVE
International Freedom of Expression Exchange (IFEX) members handbook
published in 2005, with a focus on freedom of expression and advice on
how to develop and execute a campaign strategy including campaign
tactics, case studies and links to more resources and tools

The Community
Tool Box
Developed by the Work Group for Community Health and Development at the
University of Kansas, The Community Tool Box describes itself as the
world's largest resource for free information on essential skills for
building healthy communities. It contains a series of six chapters
(Part I) on Organizing for Effective Advocacy

Advocacy
Tools and Guidelines: Promoting Policy Change
This is a manual on advocacy authored by S. Sprechmann and E. Pelton
and published by CARE International, 2001. It is designed to
familiarise development practitioners and programme managers with key
advocacy concepts and techniques. It looks at the most appropriate
strategies to influence policy decision-makers. It recognises the
frequent need to incorporate advocacy into projects in order to tackle
the root causes of problems faced by communities.